A.C.A.B.

[Mercer]

That was a little harsh, what I should say is anyone on his department should be shot in self defense for that, since it's not entirely his fault.

[abrasivesaint]

Every cop between the Rockies and Kansas, just to be safe. 

[Fist 666]

@MercerI'm not sure the logical consistency is there. I get that training is expensive, replacing is expensive, privatization has benefits, etc--but that doesn't give flawed humans an excuse to overlook other flawed humans for breaking rules in a flawed system. All that does is say no laws, rules, or norms can be expected to be upheld because we've got a built in excuse to ignore them, so fuck it, yolo, lets race the cop cars while drinking vodka from evian bottles. Bart-Simpson-Anarchism is at the end result of that line of logic.

 

Your ilk loves the "I didn't sign the social contract" piece as a means of sidestepping all of this. This fine officer not only agreed to the social contract, he swore an oath to enforce the gritty written details that hold the social contract together and make it worth acknowledging. Calling this story an "inconsequential action" is dangerous and short sighted. 

 

If police departments spent more seeking out qualified candidates, more on training, and more on community rapport building and less on out-of-court settlements, military grade vehicles and weaponry, sports cars instead of good-enough cruisers, then they wouldn't need to fire all the shitbirds they hire and worry about recouping the cost. (I've got to assume/hope you agree with me in this sentence.)

 

Using the cost of retraining "civil servants" as a means of justifying not firing people who are a definitive threat to the citizens they are meant to serve, while economically sensible, is ethically  reprehensible. I don't know that there is a good answer to the problem, but I'm not comfortable calling it "logical."

 

I think this ends with agree to disagree, but I'm gonna go hike in the snow and stay off the screen for the rest of the weekend.

 

 

[Mercer]

47 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

@MercerI'm not sure the logical consistency is there. I get that training is expensive, replacing is expensive, privatization has benefits, etc--but that doesn't give flawed humans an excuse to overlook other flawed humans for breaking rules in a flawed system.

Where are these supposed unflawed humans we should be seeking out then? This is why I'm not down with government. Wouldn't it just make more sense to assume all humans are flawed? 

 

I can show you the error in logic:

 

People are bad, so we need a government made up of People are bad, so we need a government made up of People are bad, so we need a government made up of People are bad, so we need a government made up of People....

 

 

Quote

All that does is say no laws, rules, or norms can be expected to be upheld because we've got a built in excuse to ignore them, so fuck it, yolo, lets race the cop cars while drinking vodka from evian bottles. Bart-Simpson-Anarchism is at the end result of that line of logic.

Nope, I'm suggesting holding officers to the exact same accountability as everyone else without privilege. Also, I know it's hard to but let's try to keep it civil, and not hurl insults at each other's beliefs. There's plenty I could say to insult, but I try to stick to a more civil tone. Besides, what you're falsely implying I think "there shouldn't be any rules for either police, or civilians", which is the opposite of what I've suggested, and believe.

 

Quote

Your ilk loves the "I didn't sign the social contract" piece as a means of sidestepping all of this. This fine officer not only agreed to the social contract, he swore an oath to enforce the gritty written details that hold the social contract together and make it worth acknowledging. Calling this story an "inconsequential action" is dangerous and short sighted.

Who's has faced negative consequences from his actions, or anyone else's actions from simply passing out in a car?

 

For a crime to take place, you need a victim. I simply pointed out there was no direct  harm done by him, or any other person who's ever found passed out in their car (unless they wrecked it before passing out). IMO Police should see if a passed out individual in a car needs help, and if not keep it moving and maybe look for someone directly harming others (criminals).

 

Quote

If police departments spent more seeking out qualified candidates, more on training, and more on community rapport building and less on out-of-court settlements, military grade vehicles and weaponry, sports cars instead of good-enough cruisers, then they wouldn't need to fire all the shitbirds they hire and worry about recouping the cost. (I've got to assume/hope you agree with me in this sentence.)

I don't, unfortunately. You can't spend your way out of this problem, it's been tried. This system is already throwing too much money at LE now when you factor in civil suits, pensions, department costs, etc. What we do know for sure isn't working right now is having a separate, almost non-existent justice system just for them, and that can be applied to the highest/lowest compensated LE officers and departments. To assume you can just spend your way out of all these problems disregards the value of efficiency, and ignores reality. I mean if it were as simple as spending more money on recruiting, training, and community rapport building the problem would have solved itself by now.

 

Quote

Using the cost of retraining "civil servants" as a means of justifying not firing people who are a definitive threat to the citizens they are meant to serve, while economically sensible, is ethically  reprehensible. I don't know that there is a good answer to the problem, but I'm not comfortable calling it "logical."

Again, you're twisting my words to create a false narrative to argue against. I never said there's anything that justifies criminal actions by anyone. I was pointing out the reason why officer's aren't fired when they should be, not condoning it. You really think I feel that way, really? I'm 100% about accountability of LE as a solution. It boils down to any violation of the non aggression principal makes a person a criminal, and that person should face consequences for that violation. 

 

Quote

I think this ends with agree to disagree, but I'm gonna go hike in the snow and stay off the screen for the rest of the weekend.

I should probably do the same this weekend. So there's at least something we can agree on. 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Mercer

[misteraven]

23 hours ago, Mercer said:

Holding police more accountable than civilians is just as bad as not holding them as accountable. They're humans, and should be expected to be flawed like the rest of us.

Totally disagree.

 

They should be held to a higher standard. They're placed in privileged positions that are easily taken advantage of. As such, they're also more likely to get away with it in addition to being paid to not only enforce laws, but serve as pillars to the community as a whole. Anyone that violates law, while maintaining a privileged position that directly relates to the laws being violated should be held to greater scrutiny and consequence.

 

Example: A surgeon raping a patient while under anesthesia for a procedure is not the same as a woman being raped by a stranger that snatched her walking by an alley. Both are horrible, but one is vastly different than the other. There's a matter of trust that sits at the heart of one versus the other.

[Mercer]

So what does this mean? Should they get double

11 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Totally disagree.

 

They should be held to a higher standard. They're placed in privileged positions that are easily taken advantage of. As such, they're also more likely to get away with it in addition to being paid to not only enforce laws, but serve as pillars to the community as a whole. Anyone that violates law, while maintaining a privileged position that directly relates to the laws being violated should be held to greater scrutiny and consequence.

 

Example: A surgeon raping a patient while under anesthesia for a procedure is not the same as a woman being raped by a stranger that snatched her walking by an alley. Both are horrible, but one is vastly different than the other. There's a matter of trust that sits at the heart of one versus the other.

So what does this higher degree of accountability mean?

• Should they get double, triple the punishment a civilian gets?
• Should things that are legal for civilians be illegal for officers?
• How would we keep these crucial positions filled with qualified individuals if it's the officers that would face unfair treatment?

[Drue_Down]

Look closely  👀 

 

 

 

Jewish/NYC  deli washroom in Scottsdale 

[abrasivesaint]

5 hours ago, Mercer said:

So what does this mean? Should they get double

So what does this higher degree of accountability mean?

• Should they get double, triple the punishment a civilian gets?

Maybe not double or triple, in the least it should be equal, maybe slightly higher. Stiff penalties are often enforced as a deterrent for normal citizens. Perhaps stiffer penalties should be enforced to deter those with a position of power and authority. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Mercer said:

• Should things that are legal for civilians be illegal for officers?

Depending on what exactly we’re talking about here, no. Unless there is a conflict of interest. 
 

5 hours ago, Mercer said:

• How would we keep these crucial positions filled with qualified individuals if it's the officers that would face unfair treatment?

If they’re qualified and honest they will have nothing to fear. 

[Mercer]

 

 

This is pretty amazing.

[misteraven]

18 hours ago, Mercer said:

So what does this mean? Should they get double

So what does this higher degree of accountability mean?

• Should they get double, triple the punishment a civilian gets?
• Should things that are legal for civilians be illegal for officers?
• How would we keep these crucial positions filled with qualified individuals if it's the officers that would face unfair treatment?

The maximum penalty established for that level of crime + 100%. No exceptions, no loop holes. 
 

Anyone that might choose to not pursue a career path cause they don’t like the consequences if they were to abuse the power that comes with that job, sounds like exactly what you’d want. Precisely the way to filter applicants / candidates to high trust jobs.
 

Might be willing to go 1000% when it comes to legislators and drain the swamp for real. 

[Mercer]

 

This is the flaw, it's hard to recognize because we've been conditioned our entire lives to ignore this obvious flaw in our system. Since the beginning of time it's been hierarchical whereas you don't question authority, and authority figures are supposedly "more accountable" which makes absolutely no sense. First it was the Pharos, Emperors, Kings, and now it's elected officials. Somehow their sociopathic quest for power and ability to win an election makes them more "accountable". Lol, this same hierarchical view is extended to LE, like we need them to be a step above the rest, and unquestionable or the entire system will fail which is nonsense.

 

Police are, and always will be humans like the rest of us. While you may be able to screen for some flaws like any other employer exercising due diligence would, you can't expect them to be anything less than flawed even after screening. It's not just this flawed assumption they're "more accountable" whatever that's supposed to mean, the mechanism needed to apply this accountability is almost nonexistent. Think what it would actually be like to be a cop. You deal with scum regularly, and your fellow officers are the only ones that have your back, and you've got their back, and you're all out there risking your asses every day on what has to be a very tough job. There's absolutely no way you'd be inclined to turn one of them in for something. Sure, it does happen here and there, and there's a little bit accountability, but it's less accountability than what a civilian would face. Be honest, could you see yourself snitching on one of your homies unless it was for something pathological, or absolutely heinous? Fuck no. Now imagine you're protecting each other's lives on  a daily basis.

 

All this bullshit you see today about civil unrest, people taking knees, etc. and a (bewildering to some) hatred of LE stems from both this false assumption of infallibility, and people who hate freedom, making bullshit laws that force LE to enforce victimless crimes. This is why the system is fucked, and has such low confidence.

[misteraven]

Doesn’t change my mind. If you’re in a professional position that is centered on on a specific type of trust, it should be held to a higher standard. As such, violations of it should be held to higher consequence. 
 

Again, a surgeon that rapes a patient while they’re knocked out for a procedure is not the same as some dude that snatches a chick off a dark street and rapes her. Both are evil scumbags, but the doctor is presumed to be trustworthy. You subjected yourself to him with a very real notion of trust and he violated it. 
 

I see it as somewhat analogous to premeditated homicide versus accidental homicide. End result might be the same to the victim and their friends / family, but the former rightfully justifies a stiffer consequence. 

[misteraven]

Also, I don’t dispute that cops are just as human as the rest of us. But there is the implication that because they are professionals at a given task, and should be trained accordingly, that they should be better capable at those tasks. Coupled with certain trust that’s afforded in the execution of those tasks, should also come with greater responsibility and therefore greater consequence as well. 
 

 

[misteraven]

Would seem that by your line of thinking that you think children should be treated the same as adults if convicted of the same crime? They’re both humans and therefore equal under that line of thought. 

 

My line of thinking allows for the idea that people can be culpable to varying degrees. I would expect different behavior from an adult than a child and would obviously hold one to different account than the other. Same idea applies.

[Mercer]

Yea, but a harsher punishment approach for the same crimes isn't in line with the foundational basis of written legal code. Written legal code was originally put into place to be applied to individuals equally, which is why they wrote the laws down instead of just having judges, or the public decide on a case by case basis. If laws could be switched around willy nilly on a case by case basis it defeats the purpose. The correct legal approach is to have specific laws that LE, and public officials can be charged with (like corruption) because they're a part of government, which is how the laws already in place are intended to work. 

 

The problem isn't the laws, or the harshness of punishment administered, even though it seems like that's the only approach we can take. I have a feeling these sharia law like 1000% harsher approaches would have major unintended consequences, like judges, police, and legislators doing everything they can to not enforce unless the official being charged is a political target of other officials. If this harsh punishment approached worked, there wouldn't be prostitution, gambling, drugs, or alcohol during prohibition. The problem is the day to day approach and realities of working in government.  It's the non profit approach, efficiency isn't even considered. It's the reliance of the DA on the LE officers to show up and make the effort to be convincing to testify during their cases, or they lose the case. The fact that there's almost always little to no oversight over the district attorneys, little to no oversight over the legislation, and little to no oversight over the LE departments is a consequence of having a system that assumes certain people are "more accountable" than others, which is a completely ludicrous assumption considering the blatant proof they're actually being held less accountable. This attitude is no doubt left over from a system where government (the crown) was put into place by "divine intervention". 

[Mercer]

30 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Would seem that by your line of thinking that you think children should be treated the same as adults if convicted of the same crime? They’re both humans and therefore equal under that line of thought. 

 

My line of thinking allows for the idea that people can be culpable to varying degrees. I would expect different behavior from an adult than a child and would obviously hold one to different account than the other. Same idea applies.

There's a difference between acknowledging children are not as capable, or that the mentally ill/challenged are not as capable by definition,  then setting up different sets of rules for two sets of capable adults. When standing in the presence of a government official, I don't feel the same sort of inferiority, or child like awe as a child feels standing in the presence of an adult. I feel these adults are my equal, but I don't feel like children, and even teenagers are my equals.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Mercer

[misteraven]

40 minutes ago, Mercer said:

There's a difference between acknowledging children are not as capable, or that the mentally ill/challenged are not as capable by definition,  then setting up different sets of rules for two sets of capable adults. When standing in the presence of a government official, I don't feel the same sort of inferiority, or child like awe as a child feels standing in the presence of an adult. I feel these adults are my equal, but I don't feel like children, and even teenagers are my equals.

The two adults in our scenario here have different levels of capability. More important is they also have different levels of trust and privilege as well. 

[misteraven]

46 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Yea, but a harsher punishment approach for the same crimes isn't in line with the foundational basis of written legal code. Written legal code was originally put into place to be applied to individuals equally, which is why they wrote the laws down instead of just having judges, or the public decide on a case by case basis. If laws could be switched around willy nilly on a case by case basis it defeats the purpose. The correct legal approach is to have specific laws that LE, and public officials can be charged with (like corruption) because they're a part of government, which is how the laws already in place are intended to work. 

 

The problem isn't the laws, or the harshness of punishment administered, even though it seems like that's the only approach we can take. I have a feeling these sharia law like 1000% harsher approaches would have major unintended consequences, like judges, police, and legislators doing everything they can to not enforce unless the official being charged is a political target of other officials. If this harsh punishment approached worked, there wouldn't be prostitution, gambling, drugs, or alcohol during prohibition. The problem is the day to day approach and realities of working in government.  It's the non profit approach, efficiency isn't even considered. It's the reliance of the DA on the LE officers to show up and make the effort to be convincing to testify during their cases, or they lose the case. The fact that there's almost always little to no oversight over the district attorneys, little to no oversight over the legislation, and little to no oversight over the LE departments is a consequence of having a system that assumes certain people are "more accountable" than others, which is a completely ludicrous assumption considering the blatant proof they're actually being held less accountable. This attitude is no doubt left over from a system where government (the crown) was put into place by "divine intervention". 

Whole system is fucked and not saying my idea solves all of it. Merely saying that people are not equal. They hold different skills, positions, ambitions etc. 

 

You’ve acknowledged differences in culpability, though it’s easy when it’s that extreme. My position is that people have various privileges and access based upon their profession and as such, the crimes differ. The culpability differs and therefore so should the accountability. 
 

Sharia law and all that is an entirely different conversation. Much like discrepancies in gun violence between countries, there’s cultural differences at play that have implications trust in my mind make it a very difficult, if not irrelevant, comparison to make. 

[Mercer]

 

Just now, misteraven said:

The two adults in our scenario here have different levels of capability. More important is they also have different levels of trust and privilege as well. 

So if adults with different "capabilities" should be judged differently under the law, I'd assume an illiterate person should be able to murder and get less  punishment than a college professor? How could we administer this different levels of accountability law, and prevent it from being abused down the line when people dislike landlords for example?

 

This different tiered system is a dead end argument. We're all equal under the law, whether it's our current archaic system of laws we're subject to under our current constitutional democracy, or one modeled under the non-aggression principal. The entire purpose of law/legal code is to apply the code fairly, and evenly regardless of the person's caste, creed, or status.

[Mercer]

3 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Whole system is fucked and not saying my idea solves all of it. Merely saying that people are not equal. They hold different skills, positions, ambitions etc. 

Fully agree, there are absolutely no equals. But this doesn't mean  if I noticed the person breaking into my house illegally, and threatening me, or my wife was illiterate,  or an elected official I wouldn't put away the 10mm, and pull out the .22. 

 

3 minutes ago, misteraven said:

You’ve acknowledged differences in culpability, though it’s easy when it’s that extreme. My position is that people have various privileges and access based upon their profession and as such, the crimes differ. The culpability differs and therefore so should the accountability.

This is how the free market and voluntary exclusion work, but not how legal matters work. We're all equal under the law. Again, there are already laws specifically pertaining to people violating positions of trust, they do not have much, if any effect.

 

3 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Sharia law and all that is an entirely different conversation. Much like discrepancies in gun violence between countries, there’s cultural differences at play that have implications trust in my mind make it a very difficult, if not irrelevant, comparison to make. 

I'm just using Sharia to draw a comparison between our legal system that at least attempts to apply logical consistency, and tries to hold individuals equally accountable, and Sharia law, where this approach isn't taken. A cleric or whatever can declare "punishment should be 100 lashes of the whip, instead of 10 because Allah gave them more responsibility by his divine intervention". Western legal code is intended to view all citizens as equal. The end results are never equal when hiring legal representation is crucial, but at least on paper, the laws are intended to be applied equally.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_justice_under_law

[misteraven]

17 minutes ago, Mercer said:

 

So if adults with different "capabilities" should be judged differently under the law, I'd assume an illiterate person should be able to murder and get less  punishment than a college professor? How could we administer this different levels of accountability law, and prevent it from being abused down the line when people dislike landlords for example?

 

This different tiered system is a dead end argument. We're all equal under the law, whether it's our current archaic system of laws we're subject to under our current constitutional democracy, or one modeled under the non-aggression principal. The entire purpose of law/legal code is to apply the code fairly, and evenly regardless of the person's caste, creed, or status.

Nope. I specifically mentioned that a core part of this is abusing a position of privilege. An adult fondling a child is an abuse of power. An adult fondling another adult is different. 
 

A person that uses a privileged position to facilitate a crime is more culpable. Therefore the consequence should be greater. 

[misteraven]

8 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Again, there are already laws specifically pertaining to people violating positions of trust, they do not have much, if any effect.

Because they’re rarely enforced and judgement is administered accordingly. 

[misteraven]

Just now, misteraven said:

Because they’re rarely enforced and judgement is administered accordingly. 

HRC was exonerated by the FBI because her crime wasn’t intentional. Try pointing to that case / judgement the next time you’re standing in front of a judge. 

[Mercer]

You're acknowledging the "held to a higher degree of accountability" system's inability to enforce existing laws, or even work. I don't understand the logic behind assuming changing the laws will somehow fix it.

 

I'm saying there shouldn't be a two tiered caste system under the law. Law enforcement should be 100% carried out by private security organizations, which are by nature independent, and subject to actually following laws since the monopoly on violence is broken, and it wouldn't be themselves that are the only ones responsible for, or capable of policing themselves. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Mercer

[Mercer]

29 minutes ago, misteraven said:

A person that uses a privileged position to facilitate a crime is more culpable. Therefore the consequence should be greater. 

Should be, and are, are two very different things. We're basically talking about the Catholic Church making a public decree here saying "pedophilia will be harshly punished", but at the same time expecting the Catholic church itself, to police itself, after demonstrating it's already a complete failure to do just that.

[misteraven]

You’re getting disingenuous with your rebuttal. A caste system is a social hierarchy you’re born into. What I’m saying is that people that abuse privilege should be held to a higher degree of culpability because, well... They’re more culpable. I gave several examples that I believe are logical consistencies, and how not treating it as such in this case is actually inconsistent. 
 

Clearly you’re a follower of Ancap. I don’t subscribe to any single philosophy because I don’t believe any single one can be entirely perfect. Perhaps ancap makes tremendously more sense than most others, but same way we can be critical of Democrats and Republicans of subscribing to party ideology and then blindly following along because it fits party belief, I’d say the same about not questing the individual tenet of all ideologies including ancap. 
 

Doest matter to me if they’re right 99.9% of the time, because it means there is occasion when it’s wrong. In this case, IMO, that ideology is wrong if you’re saying it inherently treats all people exactly the same, when I’ve laid A logical argument for how circumstances and context are not all equal. 
 

And indeed, fixing this one area doesn’t magically make a largely broken system suddenly work. Lots of other areas need overhaul as well. How realistic it is to implement is another discussion and applies as much, if not more so, to replacing what we have with an Ancap system nation wide. 

[Mercer]

It's not disingenuous. From my perspective, most people look up to law enforcement, judges, elected officials, etc. and they're afforded privileges because of their social positions. I'm totally OK with that, in fact, I'd probably assume I do this myself to some degree. I may treat someone differently simply based on their profession, and the implied level of accountability that comes with it. For example, I don't let people smoke weed when I have guests that are in LE over at parties. While there may be other people here that are equally as turned off by the smell, or thought of weed smoke, I just don't want to put my neighbor in a position where he has to leave, or even deal with it. Personally, I like weed, and encourage people to smoke over drinking alcohol, but out of respect I set the rules in my house to accommodate them in a way I wouldn't for others.

 

Now with that said, that's my choice, and I'm in my crib where I set the rules, and these rules only apply to the people who are here by choice making the entire situation voluntary. But I'd never expect the laws that govern the land, where people no longer have a voluntary choice in the matter to be different. Like if a semi illiterate pizza delivery person steals X from me, he should get the same punishment as if a millionaire Harvard professor steals that same X from me. If a cop gets X as punishment for a rape, why should a civilian get more or less for the exact same crime. While I agree there's an added crime of someone abusing their power while committing the crime, the punishment for the crime itself should be the same. I just don't think a two tiered system of justice would fix the problem, even if punishments were harsher for government officials under this two tiered system.

 

Studies show administering harsher penalties for crime, or even legal violations like speeding have little to no effect on rates of crime/violation. What does work much better is enforcement efforts that make it obvious you'll face a consequence, even a small consequence more likely. Like if you know you can speed down a stretch of road, and 99 times out of 100 you'll face no consequence, but that hundredth time you'll face a $1000.00 fine, you'll probably still speed just as much as if the fine was only $200. By comparison, if you knew you'd be caught 60% of the time, but face only a $20 fine, you'd probably never speed. Harsh penalties sound like they'd curb problems, but if the drug war has taught us anything, they don't.

 

This is why I'd prefer a system where a police department isn't responsible for investigating itself, or it's own officers when they're accused of wrongdoing. Likewise the same applies to a criminal, or civil judicial system. By granting them monopolies, this almost guarantees they'll get away with whatever violation/crime they want to 99 times out of 100. Same way a priest is confident that if the Arch Diocese finds out their having sexual relations with a minor, they'll probably just be transferred to save the church embarrassment, but if an outside organization like law enforcement catches them, they're more likely to face consequences.

 

I just assume that violent human predators like pedophiles, rapists, and such can come from all walks of life. Some of these types actively seek out these positions of power for this reason, and abuse it. That's not to say I view all cops as bad, or all priests as pedophiles. I just acknowledge that no matter what, these people will exist, and I want a system in place that makes them face consequences more often than they do now, as opposed to harsher consequences when/if they ever do get caught. That's the main difference we have here, I'm suggesting creating a system that allows for a more consistent mechanism for accountability, you're suggesting a break from equal punishment/accountability under the law. Like a  road laced with speed cameras at every stretch, VS a single cop on that road that can't catch everyone, but can punish who they do catch harshly.

 

For me, what it boils down to is this. I'm equally accountable, and responsible for my actions as any other adult (aside from adults with severe mental disabilities) no matter their background, or circumstances. If you were abused as a kid, grew up poor, had a shit school, or just ended up poor from bad luck, or if you were born with a silver spoon I don't care, just don't tread on me or mines, period. In my eyes, you're still responsible for your actions. This equal expectation of accountability applies to all adults, including LE, and government officials. Were all equal under the law, and the mechanism for seeing this concept through to it's conclusion should be fair, and at least work with some degree of reliability.

[misteraven]

19 hours ago, Mercer said:

Like if a semi illiterate pizza delivery person steals X from me, he should get the same punishment as if a millionaire Harvard professor steals that same X from me. If a cop gets X as punishment for a rape, why should a civilian get more or less for the exact same crime.

I've clArified that a couple times that I'm not saying all crimes across the board due to position, only that a person given responsibility due to profession that abuses it, is more culpable in a good many cases. But addressing your statement, yes. Lets say a cop arrests a woman at a bar because she's being belligerent and is obviously drunk. En route to the station, he goes out of his way to find an industrial zone and rapes her. I see this as much more culpable than a pizza guy doing a delivery that happens on a hot girl on a delivery and rapes her. Both are obvious crimes, but the cop abused a privileged position that has a clear expectation of trust whereas pizza guy is a scum bag that did something horrible.

 

19 hours ago, Mercer said:

I'm equally accountable, and responsible for my actions as any other adult (aside from adults with severe mental disabilities) no matter their background, or circumstances.

You're exempting the mentally disabled (and in a previous comment, also children) from crimes because they are less culpable. In this case, it's an expected limitation due to the cognitive ability and the maturity that allows for self control. It's not a large step to also say that certain professions naturally lend to increased advantages as well. That a cop that has someone in custody is not only expected to have a much more dialed in understanding of what is legal and not legal, as well as the consequences of the actions around all that, but they also operate within a privileged position of specific types of trust. There's an inherent expectation applied to specific position by society, as well as a clear logic that a professional is able to conduct themselves and execute specific tasks better than the rest of us. More so than that, some positions also require a certain level of trust as part of the job.

 

An individual that gets drunk on a lunch break at work, but only operates a keyboard is not the same as an individual that gets drunk at work who's job includes being responsible for other lives (lets say a tower crane operator on a big project). Even if ultimately they end up doing the same crime, there's an inherent expectation by construction workers that they can trust the various moving parts on site so that they can focus on their jobs. Same with the pizza delivery versus cop rape scenario.

 

And indeed, I believe an extensive audit of laws is well past due and that most should be thrown out and the rest overhauled and simplified. Every law should be considered from the POV that they are ultimately enforced through violence. But the laws we as a society agree to should be enforced consistently. Likewise, we should regularly review the laws we have and their implementation and ensure they are necessary. There should also be a legal recourse that isn't necessarily contingent on deep pockets.

 

20 hours ago, Mercer said:

This is why I'd prefer a system where a police department isn't responsible for investigating itself, or it's own officers when they're accused of wrongdoing. Likewise the same applies to a criminal, or civil judicial system. By granting them monopolies, this almost guarantees they'll get away with whatever violation/crime they want to 99 times out of 100.

I agree, but this is a different conversation and not mutually exclusive to the conversation we're having in regards to personal accountability and the differences between them based upon professional ability and associated privilege / trust.

[Mercer]

It's a difference in basic core philosophy that we're not going to agree on @misteraven. From what I can gather, you think the system works, at least well enough to keep basically the same structure, and it just needs a few tweaks to fine tune. My position is that this system is as fined tuned as it can possibly get without either a loss of security, or just a further loss of liberty. I'm advocating for introducing a completely new system, and  scrapping the entire old system much like when we got rid of the crown and started from scratch with a constitutional democracy. So with these massive differences in approach, it's hard to stay focused on the topic of just police accountability, or from my perspective individual accountability.

 

I can say this, once someone becomes a functional adult, they are my equal. I shouldn't be afforded any more rights, or any less rights, or be judged differently for the same crime. That's not to say I don't hold my own hierarchy of respect in my own head and apply that as I see fit, it just means by no circumstances do I violate the non-aggression principal on anyone. Adult, child, man, woman, downs syndrome, or certifiably insane, aggressing against any human or violating NAP in any way is not an option for me outside of self defense purposes. I just think police should observe this same principal, which means innocent until proven guilty, no victimless crimes enforcement, etc.

 

 

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

From what I can gather, you think the system works, at least well enough to keep basically the same structure, and it just needs a few tweaks to fine tune.

Wondering how you made the conclusion that I believe the system works? Far from it and have said a few things about how its a broken system. Last comment even mentioned actually auditing every law on the books.

 

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

I can say this, once someone becomes a functional adult, they are my equal. I shouldn't be afforded any more rights, or any less rights, or be judged differently for the same crime.

People are not equal. Thats why socialiam / communism doesnt work. We're individuals with different abilities and ambitions. Likewise we're afforded different skills, knowledge, privilege and trust depending on many things, not limited to profession. People are created equal, but do different things with what they are given. For most of it, indeed, they should be judged equal. However, taking advantage of privileged position / trust should add to the consequence of the crime, in addition to the consequence for the crime itself.